No Standalone Images, Photos, Meme Gifs, Audio or Videos. No Facebook / Twitter / Linkedin.
Videos and images should be embedded in an article providing additional information for context purposes.

Users are our front line moderators. Please take a moment to hit the Report link below each submission or comment if you see something that breaks the rules. Send the moderators a message to explain your concern if you have time. Thanks!

it boils down to traditional cross breeding is more efficient and produces resistant plants years faster then laboratory engieering.

Okay just think about that for a moment.

Monsanto has lots of competitors. And these competitors would absolutely love to get a superior product to Monsanto. If traditional breeding is so great, why have none of these competitors managed to do it to produce a superior seed?

Not true, GM varieties (which are just trait stacks on traditional hybrids) have been out producing organic and non GM for years. Of course GM isn't a yield booster (yield comes from hybrid) but an insurance against pests and weeds (which rob yield).

Depends if they are safe for a person to eat! Aslo depends on how resistant the weeds are to Roundup. And how much extra herbacide spraying on our food may lead to health effects! Why should we eat BT plants which means our gut bacteria may be producing roundup ready proteins!

To summarise your link, Séralini, et al. 2012 published a paper saying that GMO and RoundUp Ready caused rats to die. The paper was junk, and the scientific community were right to backlash against it.

Have a look at the graphs in Seralini's paper. Their own graphs show that their data is a mess. In fact their own graphs show that the stronger the concentration of RoundUp Ready pesticide, the less likely the female mammals were likely to die!

You listed one of thirteen references cited in this article and then focus your critique entirely on that paper. So what you offer here, while true, in no way disavows the main assertion of this article.

I doubt any of your upvoters took the time to read my link. It´s a bit of an exercise in futility having a reasonable discourse on this subject on reddit.

Well we're talking about Monsanto, and most of them have nothing to do with Monsanto.

The words of a former editor of a medical journal has nothing to do with Monsanto. Nor the behaviour of a publishing giant.

Other parts aren't even real complaints - they are somehow surprised that editors of a journal into food research has experience in the industry.

I'd be far more surprised and concerned if you had journal editors without any experience!

And then it seems to complain about unpublished science?

All other research, no matter how groundbreaking or true, is irrelevant. As a scientist once scathingly said of the “commercially confidential” industry safety data that underpin approvals of chemicals and GM foods, “If it isn’t published, it doesn’t exist.”

I have no idea what complaint the article is trying to make. It seems to want us to consider papers that haven't even managed to get past peer review !?

Then the article says:

but it is clear why Monsanto would have an interest in ensuring that the “Séralini affair” is never repeated.

Well, yes? You've agreed that the Séralini paper indeed might have been junk, and so of course Monsanto don't want junk anti-GMO scientific papers being published.